LAW FOR ALL

Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). and sec. 20 of the Act - Presumption - Complainant not supported the prosecution - no other witness was examined who saw the handed over the tainted money to the accused - mere possession of tainted amount makes an offence ? - Trial court and high court held that it is an offence - but the Apex court held that in the absence of proof of demand of bribe, mere possession can not fasten liability as the presumption under sec.20 can be drawn only under sec.7 but not to an offences under sec. 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. and as such the apex court set aside the order and acquitted the accused = B. JAYARAJ ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF A.P. ... RESPONDENT (S) = 2014 (March . Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41352